This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The case was a civil action brought under New York Executive Law § 63(12), which explicitly enables the Attorney General to bring suit against someone engaged in repeated fraud. Not all fraud is criminal; most is a civil matter.
One of Trump's properties jumped in reported value from $80 million to $150 million between 2005 and 2006 without explanation. He admitted under oath in 2007 that he overstates property values and thinks most other people do as well. Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump regularly inflated or deflated the values of his properties for ego or tax purposes. Trump's own CFO testified at trial that Trump had overstated property values by hundreds of millions of dollars (around double their value). In facilitation of this, he also falsely reported other data about his properties, such as reporting a 10,000 sq. ft. apartment as 30,000 sq. ft. These are not small technical discrepancies, but a repeated pattern of massively fudging numbers for financial and tax benefits.
The ones that engage in decades of systematic fraud, yeah.
Got it. The Democratic prosecutor who campaigned on going after Trump for political purposes is a one-off that will only be used when Republicans deserve it. Incidentally, Trump deserved it. Maybe if they prosecuted literally anybody else for financial crimes in the State of New York, I'd believe you.
Maybe I'd take your position a little less skeptically if you were arguing that every politician in the stock market, or every banker behind 2008, should also be charged with fraud. I'd still think it was convenient, since none of those people are actually getting prosecuted, and likely never will. But at least you could claim that your claim to principles is principled.
Are you suggesting that Trump is the first person to ever be found liable for fraud in New York? I'm willing to bet a large amount that's not true.
If you are going to keep making this claim you need to show another victimless fraud case that occurred that had zero pressure from an victim pushing for prosecution.
We can avoid discussing whether Trump did fraud. Just show me a victimless fraud case in NYC.
Here.
There is like 30 pdf in there. Explain relevance and how it applies.
You asked for
I provided it. If you don't want to read it, don't ask for it.
Generally providing a summary of the case etc are considered proper form.
Assuming you are providing an equivalent case that would mean it’s been used twice - once to target an oil company which is a blue tribe political enemy and once to target Donald Trump a blue tribe political enemy.
It's been used much more than twice - the law has been on the books since the 50s.
I picked this case specifically because it was so clearly politically motivated, because that made it easy to have confidence that it was not actually motivated by Exxon investors who felt victimised. If you want to shift the goalposts and ask for a non-political 63(12) case instead, I can find one of those.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link